I'd like to buy a 3-letter acronym

I don't really have angry rant blog posts that often, and when I do, it's usually about anything short of a pure and wholehearted love someone has for Stonehill. This time, it's about the AL MVP Award that went to Miguel Cabrera over Mike Trout. I've done some thinking, and some reading, and I've decided that the decision is horseshit. Let's take a look at some common arguments made in favor of Cabrera winning the award:

-One is that Cabrera was on a playoff team. Namely, the AL Pennant winners, the Detroit Tigers. Detroit's record in the regular season? 88-74, one game worse than the Angels. Yep - Detroit would have finished fourth in the AL West, and Los Angeles would have won the AL Central.

-Well surely, a Triple Crown winner has to win the MVP Award, since it's such a rare feat. How about Ted Williams in the 1941 and 1942 seasons? Both times he won the Triple Crown, and finished second in the MVP voting. So the automatic decision to award a Triple Crown winner the MVP Award isn't that legitimate.

-A lot of stat-heads are moving towards the new age, the wave of sabermetrics. Statistics like WAR and WPA have been in many discussions. WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, is more or less how many more wins Player A is worth than a replacement Player B. Trout's WAR in 2012? 10.7. The best WAR in the majors this season, and the 20th-best WAR ever. Like, out of all the players in all the seasons of baseball. Cabrera's WAR? A measly 6.9, which was actually lower than his 2011 WAR of 7.3. Cabrera's 2012 WAR ranks tied for 496th all-time, and was only 5th in the majors this year.

-WPA, or Win Probability Added, is the change in Win Probability for your team after you come up to bat. Your team can have a Win Probability of 99% if you're ahead by more than two runs in the 9th inning, with none on, and two out. The more influence you have on the outcome of a game, the higher your WPA. This article makes a very interesting point about the lack of control hitters have toward their WPA, making it seem like a reasonable counterexample to the use of the statistics. Nonetheless, Trout's was higher than Cabrera's.

-And if you're all about making arguments that seem to come out of thin air, I'd like to play along. The Angels, sans Trout, would be a hell of a lot worse off than Detroit without Cabrera. How about Prince Fielder? How about reigning MVP/Cy Young Award winner Justin Verlander? How about the AL Central? Every team (except Detroit) was in the bottom six in the AL in terms of ERA. The White Sox, Royals, Twins, and Indians had a combined 4.47 ERA. The Athletics, Rangers, and Mariners' combined ERA? 3.74. When you play half your schedule against teams with a 4.47 ERA, you're going to be more productive offensively.

Trout makes any team better than Cabrera does, but too many people in and out of the game of baseball are looking only at the numbers, when there's more to that when assessing the value of a player in regards to his/any team. You think Cabrera could steal 49 bases in a season? You think he could save 21 runs, defensively? (He actually cost Detroit four.) You think Cabrera could create runs on the basepaths? He can't do any of these things. Tell me something Cabrera does that Trout can't, on the baseball field. Go ahead, because you'll be looking for a while.